Winston R. Anderson, et al., Petitioners v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee, et al.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a dispute over what a person must allege when claiming that the people managing plan assets failed to use enough care because a fund performed poorly. The question is whether the complaint must include a "meaningful benchmark," or a clear comparison point for that performance.

The Court has granted review, but oral argument has not been scheduled yet. No substantive justice or advocate reactions are available yet.

The answer could change how hard it is to bring lawsuits over weak investment results in employee benefit plans. For example, a worker who says a plan fund lagged may or may not have to identify a specific comparison benchmark in the opening complaint.

It asks whether a complaint over weak fund performance must include a meaningful benchmark. That means a clear comparison point for judging the fund.

Employees in benefit plans and the committees managing plan assets could be affected. The case may change how easily these lawsuits survive the first stage in court.

Oral argument has not been scheduled yet. Watch for a scheduling order or another move from the Court.